Free Expression, Harmful Speech and Censorship in a Digital World

As more aspects of our lives increasingly move online, we must contend with operating in a digital public square owned by private entities — one where freedom of expression falls not under the purview of the First Amendment, but under emergent standards being shaped by technology companies. Such challenges have taken on an increased urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Americans turning to social media for interaction and information and finding the platforms awash in false claims and conspiracy theories that threaten health. As freedom of speech is considered sacrosanct in the U.S., where do we draw the line on free expression in online communities? Is there a consensus among Americans on what is considered harmful, and what should be restricted? And who decides when and whether to restrict potentially harmful content — social media companies, the government or some other entity? At the same time, a national debate has focused on who should be held liable for such content — the person who posts it or the internet company that hosts it? Gallup and Knight conducted a study to gauge Americans’ opinions on these matters, delving specifically into two potential paths forward — amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely shields internet companies from legal liability for content shared on their sites, and the relatively new notion of content oversight boards.2